D&D 4E Changing the 4e save mechanism.

[Tuft]

Eyeballing a DC is simplicity (knocked over railings/something near to grab onto? DC10.

Nah, this is 4E. The higher the level of the grabber, the harder the railing has to be to grab.... ("It is soaped, barbed and covered in ground glass!")

The world follows from the game, not the game from the world.

If you have a 55% chance of grabbing a railing regardless of whether you are skilled or unskilled, high-level or low-level - well, than that is because the skilled, high-level grabber always ends up with trying to grab a much harder handhold. You redefine the world to make it fit the game rules, not derive the rules from the situation.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Although a huge 4e fan, I am still bothered by the 4e save mechanism. The flip-a-coin approach just feels wrong to me. I realize it is simple and smooth, but I have been thinking if there was an easy way to replace it. This is what I came up with.

Example: a wizard +8 to hit with his spells casts sleep on a Bugbear Strangler which has a Will defence of 16.

Normal play: The wizard rolls to hit, and if hit the Bugbear is slowed. Next round, the bugbear rolls a save, and on 1-9, he falls asleep.

My version: The wizard rolls to hit, and if hit, the Bugbear is slowed. Next round, the bugbear makes a save. However now, instead of it being a flip of the coin, the bugbear rolls a Will save (his modifier to his Will Defense, in this case a +6) against the wizard's Attack (10+attack modifier), which gives us an 18, in this example. If he fails to hit the required DC, he falls asleep.

So, in my example, the bugbear retains the same chance of being hit by the spell, but suffers a lower chance to escape it.

Now, had the spell been another spell, and targeted fortitude, the bugbear would have had an +8 modifier (since his fortitude defense is 18) in his attempt to get out of the wizard's spell. (The DC would still be 18, since the wizard's attack modifier most likely is the same, no matter if it is a spell that targets fortitude or will).

Since the attack +'s and defenses are pretty streamlined across the board, I do not think the change would be a big problem, or create some unbalancing issues. Yes, higher level monsters' spells and effects will be harder to escape/avoid, but is that so bad?

Anyway, it would be nice if you could point out some issues (that I seem to miss) that this change would cause in other parts of 4e.

The biggest issue with this change is that being affected by spells for longer than a round is unfun. Not getting to have a turn several rounds in a row because of a very difficult save puts a player or monster "out of action" and reduces fun. Why even bother to play if there are spell effects that require an 18 save? Yeah that wizard might be 6 levels higher than you and trying to kill your character but we couldn't let him infringe on your right to throw off his spell like it was nothing so you can keep playing. That wouldn't be fair.

 

[Jhaelen]

Nah, this is 4E. The higher the level of the grabber, the harder the railing has to be to grab.... ("It is soaped, barbed and covered in ground glass!")

The world follows from the game, not the game from the world.

Indeed, that's exactly how most terrain effects work in 4E. It's one of the things I feel a bit uncomfortable about. I'm fine with the reasoning behind minions but this auto-scaling terrain is truly weird.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Nah, this is 4E. The higher the level of the grabber, the harder the railing has to be to grab.... ("It is soaped, barbed and covered in ground glass!")

The world follows from the game, not the game from the world.

Only if you let it

For those people who are comfortable with that, it's fine. It doesn't work for me though, as I've been interested in simulationist RPGing since I first read about D&D those long, long years ago...

I heartily disliked (and didn't use) the 3e principle of levelling up orcs as the PCs reached higher levels. I certainly won't use 'levelling up terrain'!

Cheers

 

[Lacyon]

Any reason you can't do both? Like, say, Joe Stumpy and Nimble McRogue each have an equal chance to avoid going over the edge by diving to the ground and eating grass (saving throw), but whoever actually does go over the cliff gets the "catch a handhold" check (Athletics or other appropriate skill)?

(Similarly, since you're giving an extra check to those who go over, you can now consider making people pass an extra save for each additional square of forced movement they're negating by falling prone. This of course can involve a lot of extra die-rolling and may not be worth it overall).

 

[James McMurray]

Eyeballing a DC is definitely fast for some groups, for others its practically impossbile. WotC seems to be trying to avoid "you have to make this up" as much as possible with their rule set. There are definitely holes that a group needs to fill, but I can't think of anywhere they've flat out said "we're not going to tell you anyhing, so just eyeball it."

For the groups that want a little more relativity in their saves vs. falling off a cliff, and don't mind leaving up to the GM's whim, "just eyeball it" probably the best option.

 

[Plane Sailing]

WotC seems to be trying to avoid "you have to make this up" as much as possible with their rule set.

It's strange, because in some areas WotC are embracing 'make this up' much more than they did in 3e, but in other areas they are much more prescriptive than before.

 

[amysrevenge]

It's strange, because in some areas WotC are embracing 'make this up' much more than they did in 3e, but in other areas they are much more prescriptive than before.

The difference to me is that I'm finding fewer places where I have to make stuff up, and more places where I can, if I want to, make stuff up.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Indeed, that's exactly how most terrain effects work in 4E. It's one of the things I feel a bit uncomfortable about. I'm fine with the reasoning behind minions but this auto-scaling terrain is truly weird.

I remember reading some passage on this in the DMG, but I can't remember it. Basically it tells us to not overthink this.

My general assumptions would always be that the DCs are as high as they are due to the circumstances and the setting, and I should try matching the "flavour" of the encounter with the mechanic. Breaking down a wooden door doesn't become a DC 30 challenge just because it is for higher level characters. I probably wouldn't use a simple wooden door in the first place if it was supposed to be a challenge. It would be Admantite or magically reinforced.

For "simulationist" purposes, you could do it the other way around - think what level your description has and use that DC. So, a Wooden Door is a Level 3 obstacle, a Admantite door is a level 23 obstacle.

The general assumption though will always be that you will design the adventure so that the PCs face challenges of their level. But if you can't or it doesn't feel right in certain scenarios - use the reserve method.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Count me among those bothered by the save to avoid being pushed into nasty places. Two things disturb me: the universality of the 55% chance, and the requirement that there be hazardous terrain (as opposed to a 6-enemy flank or other hazardous non-terrain situation) with the implication that the victim is aware of the hazard. I'm considering two house rule alternatives. Both begin with "When you are being pushed, pulled or slid you may, one time during the forced movement, attempt to fall prone and stop the movement. You may not do this if you are already prone."

Option A is "make an Athletics, Acrobatics or Endurance check. If your roll beats the attack roll that caused the forced movement, you succeed and fall prone."

Option B is "If you attempt this, the attacker must roll a d20 with the same bonus as the attack that caused the forced movement, but against your best non-AC defense. If the attacker succeeds at that roll, the forced movement continues; otherwise, you fall and stop moving."

I don't know how the math would scale. I suspect that under option A, characters who do not advance their physical stats (wizards) will become highly likely at high levels to be pushed off cliffs, making safewing amulets popular.

I'd like for the chance of success for a very capable character (strong, nimble or just plain stubborn) to be around 75%, with average characters in the 50-60% range and weak and clumsy characters at 25 to 35%. Any thoughts or analysis?